• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Ridiculous theories that the author know's is bogus but perpetuates

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

In the hope that we can learn a better language about hoaxing, it's sort of important to discern between rather simple Photoshopped stuff and objects that are 3d rendered. They are different and can be discerned by separate criteria. So I hope that "photoshop" does not become the new catch-all for hoaxing. For one, photoshop is a less common tool for faking video. Hope this makes sense I'm a a tad shy about Paracast forums.
 
If the UFO is crystal clear, then it is fake. Sorry, but this rule of thumb seems to usually play out. So-called "real" UFOs often seem to create a field of distortion around themselves that make photography difficult. Unlike conventional aircraft that can be clearly photographed, UFOs seem hidden with an energy field of some sort. But I am finding photography of UFO's to be a rather dated concept. The Facebook group UFO UPDATES routinely has photos of lights in nighttime sky, posted often by Alejandro Rojas. A light in a black sky could be anything! Such photos may have had credence in the 1950's, but haven't we all moved on? I honestly do not know what would serve as valid evidence nowadays, but photos are NOT it IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Vimana said:
In the hope that we can learn a better language about hoaxing, it's sort of important to discern between rather simple Photoshopped stuff and objects that are 3d rendered. They are different and can be discerned by separate criteria. So I hope that "photoshop" does not become the new catch-all for hoaxing. For one, photoshop is a less common tool for faking video. Hope this makes sense I'm a a tad shy about Paracast forums.
Click to expand...
Don't be shy. We don't bite (at least not on the first date!).
 
I like lots of of playfulness to be sure. Yet "Clarity" of an image does not seem to be an absolute BS alarm in most cases, at least to me. It depends on what that clarity reveals. My skeptical eye forms more from inaccurate reflection, unusual refraction, and objects that are supposed to be 'chrome' but do not reflect realistic surroundings that sound my BS siren. These do come from more clear "images" but it's important to discern that the clearer the image the easier it is to disprove, not the clearer the image the faker it is.
 
Vimana said:
I like lots of of playfulness to be sure. Yet "Clarity" of an image does not seem to be an absolute BS alarm in most cases, at least to me. It depends on what that clarity reveals. My skeptical eye forms more from inaccurate reflection, unusual refraction, and objects that are supposed to be 'chrome' but do not reflect realistic surroundings that sound my BS siren. These do come from more clear "images" but it's important to discern that the clearer the image the easier it is to disprove, not the clearer the image the faker it is.
Click to expand...
Hope that makes some sense
 
That said I believe almost all ET contact is a very real, but internal, experience. I'm sure others disagree, this is my personal experience. I do not think that extra-terrestrials visit us very often but Inner-terrestrials visit each night. Oh well I blew my cover:)
 
Vimana said:
That said I believe almost all ET contact is a very real, but internal, experience. I'm sure others disagree, this is my personal experience. I do not think that extra-terrestrials visit us very often but Inner-terrestrials visit each night. Oh well I blew my cover:)
Click to expand...
Do you have any theories why they visit?
 
beyondthestargate said:
If the UFO is crystal clear, then it is fake. Sorry, but this rule of thumb seems to usually play out. So-called "real" UFOs often seem to create a field of distortion around themselves that make photography difficult. Unlike conventional aircraft that can be clearly photographed, UFOs seem hidden with an energy field of some sort. But I am finding photography of UFO's to be a rather dated concept. The Facebook group UFO UPDATES routinely has photos of lights in nighttime sky, posted often by Alejandro Rojas. A light in a black sky could be anything! Such photos may have had credence in the 1950's, but haven't we all moved on? I honestly do not know what would serve as valid evidence nowadays, but photos are NOT it IMHO.
Click to expand...

It was early Paracast episodes in which David Biedny would talk about distant sizeable objects actually photographed having a certain amount of 'atmospheric haze' due to the light begin scattered by the gases in air or particulate matter or even humidity. I know it is extremely subjective but I do believe the human brain can be very adept at instantly assessing an image and giving it at least a basic 'looks legit' or 'looks fake' and I'd wager that all but the best fakes can be weeded out by this process. I prefer old VHS videos of UFOs. Yes the quality can be crap but it was incredibly hard for the home videographer to even attempt a worthy fake back then and with terrible auto focus, or even bad manual manipulation, coupled with hand-held shake, these factors actually helped in proving that a video was not faked - at least in as much as what you see was actually in front of the lens. Whether it was a true UFO at a distance or a model closer up a 'la Meier et al, was another matter but then that goes back to the atmospheric hazing.

I often read posts in the forum about there not being much decent UFO videos around but actually I've seen stacks and stacks. I'm not saying that they will prove the phenomenon to a skeptic, but I do believe many of them show bona fide UFOs.

If someone can briefly explain an easy way to say grab clips of video from youtube or a movie etc I may just start something I've been meaning to do for years now and that is to put together a video containing all the clips I am aware of that I feel are good contenders for being real UFOs. I'd love to have a ten-minute video of all my fav clips. (you can show a lot of clips in 10 mins!)

So does anyone know the best (easiest) way to grab video to then edit altogether?
 
Creepy_Green_Light said:
This clown doesn't get nearly the notoriety that Billy Meier has received. But he has fooled a great amount of people. Remember Antonio Urzi?

Click to expand...

I am no supporter/denier of the Urzi case but I personally believe this particular video is not even Urzi footage. It is someone claiming to be Urzi and making a poor job of faking a video. This object is small and being manipulated and I think maybe the guy is using a glass screen somehow. Whatever the truth or not of Urzi case, I think this video is nothing to do with him. At least some of the early Urzi footage is filmed in presence of witnesses, during the day and in a large city, unlike Meier, who has to go off alone on his moped to get any photos. Short of pure CGI I think Urzi would encounter vastly more problems trying to film small models outside his flat in daytime etc. I know Meier is B.S but I really do not know enough about the Urzi case to really speak from an informed point of view. If anyone knows if any of his footage has been analysed by a respected 3rd party I would appreciate a heads-up please?
 
Goggs Mackay said:
I am no supporter/denier of the Urzi case but I personally believe this particular video is not even Urzi footage. It is someone claiming to be Urzi and making a poor job of faking a video. This object is small and being manipulated and I think maybe the guy is using a glass screen somehow. Whatever the truth or not of Urzi case, I think this video is nothing to do with him. At least some of the early Urzi footage is filmed in presence of witnesses, during the day and in a large city, unlike Meier, who has to go off alone on his moped to get any photos. Short of pure CGI I think Urzi would encounter vastly more problems trying to film small models outside his flat in daytime etc. I know Meier is B.S but I really do not know enough about the Urzi case to really speak from an informed point of view. If anyone knows if any of his footage has been analysed by a respected 3rd party I would appreciate a heads-up please?
Click to expand...
I should have clarified; I believe the video I posted was of someone "debunking" the Urzi video's - just showing how he made the hoax video's. I didn't post any of the actual Urzi video's themselves.
 
I have several theories why {ET} may visit us. But I wanted to rephrase something I said over too many Guinness. I said "I believe almost all ET contact is a very real, but internal, experience. "
Let's back up the truck a little. Sorry.

I don't mean I find all reports of ET contact to be real. (of course)

I do mean that genuine contact with otherworldly beings is frequent in other situations (Entheogens like DMT, Salvia, and the Dream State) and that there are few cases I've read about that do not fit this "Entheogen" profile. Having many experiences with otherworldlyness in both entity and situational forms, it is hard to believe that (alleged) non-psychedelic UFO experiences are inherently different from near identical psychedelic states.

Alien Encounters and Entheogen Encounters- They are most likely related, due to their experiential evidence. Because of my experiences I think (not believe) that they are the same or very related things.

This does not mean I find UFO reports 'less real'. Much the opposite I find that my Entheogen experience adds validity to the high strangeness encounter. Something is out there knocking on the door. But ET from a nearby planet would be the last of my suspects.
 
I see it didn't take long for crazies to say that the Oregon School Shootings were faked. How can you say that with a straight face?? (saw the below headline in today's news)

Oregon shooting victim Chris Mintz recounts ordeal, takes on conspiracy theorists
 
Back
Top